UNM Announces Additional Details for Nike N7 Game

Nike has launched the N7 Fund, which "provides grants to Native American and Aboroginal communities in support of sports and physical activity programs for youth." Seven years after Nike’s Native American division began, the Nike design team collaborated with various community experts and tribal leaders to create footwear specifically for the Native American community, called Nike Air Native N7.

In a recent university news story, the University of New Mexico (UNM) announced its partnership with Nike N7 as part of a celebration and recognition of American Indian Heritage Month this November. This is a strategic move on Nike's part to not only partner with UNM but to publicize this partnership during November right before Thanksgiving Day.

According to the article, "As part of its partnership with Nike N7, the Lobos will wear turquoise, the color of friendship and one of UNM’s official school colors from 1973-79; on November 30th and be the final N7 game of American Indian Heritage month. This game will feature special presentation of colors by the Laguna-Acoma High School Marine Corps JROTC; singing of the national anthem in Navajo by current UNM student Stacie Barney; a pregame recognition of tribal leaders; and halftime recognition of Notah Begay III, a native New Mexican and Nike N7 ambassador.

In addition, UNM American Indian Student Services and the Notah Begay III Foundation (NB3) will be auctioning off the 14 game-worn turquoise jerseys throughout the game with proceeds going to both organizations. The jersey auction will start when gates open and close with 10 minutes to go in the 2nd half."
Currently there are 19 Pueblos living in New Mexico. They include the Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Jemez, Laguna, Nambe, Ohkay Owingeh, Picuris, Pojoaque, Sandia, San Felipe, San Ildefonso, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santo Domingo, Taos, Tesuque, Zia and Zuni); Jicarilla Apache Nation, Mescalero Apache Tribe, and the Navajo Nation.

In reference to our class readings, we discussed diversity and multiculturalism in relation to corporate social responsibility (CSR). Here, Nike is utilizing its CSR platform to exemplify its commitment to diversity and a particular community.

Despite Nike's goodwill, it sounds counter intuitive for the company to be pushing the N7 Fund when it has been accused of human rights violations in China, Vietnam, Indonesia and Mexico (www.globalexchange.org).

According to Global Exchange,  an international human rights organization dedicated to promoting social, economic and environmental justice around the world, they do praise Nike's efforts to raise the Indonesian wage and improve health conditions. However, Nike still has a long way to go to meet the anti-sweatshop movement's call for companies to pay a living wage, allow independent monitoring in all factories, and ensure that workers have the right to organize into independent unions."

Based on this article, what do you think of Nike's CSR strategy? Is it a world apart from addressing real issues, or is their strategy smart in regards to recovering from past human rights violations? 

Anderson Cooper Criticizes Philippine Government Reaction to Typhoon Haiyan

In the recent coverage of Typhoon Haiyan, Anderson Cooper criticized the Philippine government's response to the destruction. 

Talking to CNN's Jake Tapper, anchor of The Lead on Tuesday, Cooper said: “You would expect perhaps to see a feeding center that had been set up five days after the storm. We haven’t seen that, certainly not in this area."

Cooper continued: "Some food is being brought to people here at the airport, some water being distributed but it are very, very difficult conditions for the people here on the ground and it’s not clear how much longer it can continue like this. Something is got to give."

Cooper also compared the country's response to the 2011 disaster in Japan and said: “When I was in Japan, right after the tsunami there two years ago, within a day or two, you had Japanese defense forces going out, carving up cities into grids and going out on foot looking for people, walking through the wreckage. We have not seen that here in any kind of large scale operation.” 

According to the Forbes article, "Snowstorm Crisis Lessons: Eight Steps for Maintaining Trust During Natural Disasters," it is evident that Cooper is critical of the Philippine government for lack of attention to what the article suggests are instrumental to maintain trust during a natural disaster. Applying these snowstorm lessons to the typhoon disaster is no different. Below are the steps we discussed in class that could be applied to the PR response from the Philippine government. 

1. Identify the problem and your related responsibilities.  

2. Intervene early and often. 

3. Become the face and voice of leadership. 

4. Give people a feedback mechanism.

5. Mind your messages.

6. Show humanity.

7. Continuously evaluate and adjust your responses. 

8. Display post-trauma resilience.

Filipino TV anchor Karina Sanchez, who is also the wife of Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Mar Roxas, replied to Cooper's accusations stating, "This Anderson Cooper said that there's no government presence in Tacloban. It seems that he doesn't know what he's saying.) 

From a crisis communications standpoint, do you think the Philippine government has responded with appropriate messaging and strategy to handle the typhoon crisis?

Links: http://www.medianewser.com/2013/11/korina-vs-anderson-whose-side-are-you-on.html#.Uof_ZcSVdT9

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/15/anderson-cooper-defends-philippines-coverage_n_4280683.html

A For-Profit Non-Profit?

            Nonprofit organizations have a certain stigma about them that automatically categorizes them as philanthropic.  We think of them as trustworthy because they are in it for the “good of their cause” rather than to become wealthy.  As I am sure most of you have found in working with your organization on your communication campaign plan, many small nonprofits are constantly caught in a vicious fund-raising cycle.  They must solicit donors for funds to carry out their plans and to pay their employees.  Once these funds run out, the cycle begins again.  The New York Times recently posted a case study on a nonprofit organization grappling with this issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/business/smallbusiness/a-social-entrepreneurs-dilemma-nonprofit-or-for-profit.html?pagewanted=1

            Saul Garlick founded ThinkImpact while in college, and has continued to work full time for the organization ever since.  His social enterprise works to encourage entrepreneurship in third world countries.  He has sent students to analyze day-to-day life in impoverished communities and to work with the residents to build social businesses.  For more about his organization: http://www.thinkimpact.com/

ThinkImpact is currently dealing with many of the monetary issues that face small nonprofit organizations.  Its fundraising consists of numerous small stakeholders, making it difficult to please them all.  The organization is expanding its research, but is not working on a sustainable business model.  After missing a few payrolls, Garlick decided to reevaluate.  He is debating closing the nonprofit and then buying out its assets with a new for-profit organization.  He would then ask universities to pay for student trips to Africa, and provide “hands-on training in social enterprise”.  This is where the majority of his funding would come from. 

How would this re-branding of his organization impact its image?

Is it possible for a for-profit company to have a non-profit mindset? 

            This issue seems incredibly relevant for many small nonprofit organizations.  Although the “nonprofit” title provides them credibility and exempts them from taxes, it is difficult to create a sustainable business model.  An example of a for-profit nonprofit that has been successful thus far is the Google Foundation.  This article describes their business model: https://www.experience.com/alumnus/article?channel_id=nonprofit&source_page=home&article_id=article_1159827498740

Would your nonprofit benefit from this type of organizational change?

How do you think the public will perceive for-profit nonprofits? 

Crisis Management - Ranjit Sinha

     Earlier this week CBI director Ranjit Sinha made a statement in regards to legalizing betting in sports that has outraged women across the country. He was sitting on a panel discussion on “Ethics and integrity in sports – need for a law and role of CBI” when he said, “If you cannot enforce the ban on betting, it is like saying if you can’t prevent rape, you enjoy it.”

   

  The National Commission for Women said, “Ranjit Sinha has made a controversial statement. We not only condemn it, but also protest against it. How can he make comparison with a heinous offence like rape when the rape laws are changing?” Many women are even demanding his resignation.

    

 On March 21, 2013, India passed a new law that stiffens punishments of sexual violence in the aftermath of the notorious gang rape last December that left a medical student dead. The law has made stalking and voyeurism punishable for the first time and has recognized insidious forms of sexual violence against women.

The CBI, which is similar to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States, was set up to fight corruption by government employees, but also investigates other important cases including murder, rape and terrorism. Brinda Karat, leader of the Communist Party of India, said, “It is sickening that a man who is in charge of several rape investigations should use such an analogy.”

  

   Sinha has since issued an official apology saying, “I regret any hurt caused as the same was inadvertent and unintended. I reiterate my deep sense of regard and respect for women and commitment to gender issues.”  After reading about crisis management and discussing it in class, is this apology enough or does the CBI need to do more to save their reputation.  Is there anything Sinha can do to save his own?

    

 From the reading, I would say that the attribution of responsibility is moderate since the stakeholders claim Sinha is operating in an inappropriate manner. Sinha used the diminish posture by denying intent to do harm and trying to excuse and justify his mistake.

     I believe the CBI and Sinha will need to do more than a half-hearted apology to regain the trust of the women in India.  Rape has been a major problem there for years. Government statistics earlier indicated that a woman is raped every 20 minutes in India, although the country’s conviction rate for rape crimes is one of the lowest in the world. The recent media attention has led to new laws, but the overall attitude towards women and rape needs to change in order to really fix things. Top officials need to be the leaders in this attitude shift.

Here is a link to a parody video that satirizes the idea that women are to blame for rape.  It has gone viral in India and received over half a million hits in three days. The video is by a comedy group called All India Bakchods: http://youtu.be/8hC0Ng_ajpY

"Negative Emotions Motivate People More Than Positive Emotions"

Watching the Daily Show this morning as I sipped my ritual cup of Joe, an interesting segment came on regarding the Colorado recall elections back in September  in regards to the Gun Safety Laws and former State Senator John Morse. Correspondant Jason Jones came to Colorado in an effort to figure out what was behind the measures, and what was so drastic that it would result in a recall election.

In the segment, the topic of motivation comes up, particularly in regard to behavior change.  In it, Jones is perplexed that such level-headed gun laws, supported by the majority of Coloradans, would/could result in such dire consequences for the Senator who proposed the legislation.  Jones takes to the streets, and finds many people who supported the measure, but who failed to vote in the recall election.  The one's that voted in the recall election, it seemed, comprised of the roughly 20% who were against the measures in the first place.

This isn't the first instant something like this has happened.  In my home state of Arizona in 2008, we passed legislation with an overwhelming majority that stated it would be illegal to pass any form of anti-lgbt legislation, including making gay marriage illegal.  Although it did not make gay marriage legal, it was at least stated that you could not make it illegal.  Many right-wing groups rallied against this, and tried twice in future elections to reverse the measure, utilizing tactics such as confusing re-wording (which almost worked) and general rabbel-rousing.

And it's frustrating.  Most people after voting for a measure and seeing it pass, generally move on and consider the mission accomplished.  Most constituents don't realize that after passing a law or any other form of legislation requires follow-through to ensure the safety and protection of that measure.  Just because it was agreed upon and it passes doesn't make it immune to repeal or reversal.

This is the issue that Jones was trying to hit on.  His general question referred to why, if so many people supported the gun safety laws in the first place, was this recall successful.  The answer he got was simple.  The people weren't angry.  They weren't threatened.  After it passed, essentially, they forgot about it.

Coming back to messaging, then, what efforts could legislators, politicians or activist groups employ to ensure the success of campaigns, or debunking motions that are contrary to public opinion and will?  It seems like we are bombarded by messaging during election time, but when it comes to the laws and motions that actually affect our daily life and well-being, the majority of citizens are ignorant to what is going on.  You pretty much have to go out of your way to look up and research these issues independently, unless your willing to listen to a canvasser proselytize to you and ask for a signature for some petition.  It seems to me in this modern age of technology and advanced communication and media methods, there would and should be a system of regular reporting and bringing the information to the masses that is accessible.

Touching on motivation, a statement in the segment suggested that people are more motivated by negative emotion, such as anger and fear.  Do you agree with this?  Or is it mostly the flaw in our presentation and media that lend to the characteristic that people really only know what's going on and get behind issues when something is brought to their attention that threatens their ideology, status or existence?

I found this article titled "Irrational Emotions or Emotional Wisdom? The Evolutionary Psychology of Emotions and Behavior." by Martie G. Haselton of UCLA Center for Behavior Evolution and Culture and Timothy Ketelaar of New Mexico State University's Department of Psychology.  In it, they state that Anger as a motivating factor "is a response to experiencing a transgression... attempting to deter it through action against the source" (2005).  Disgust is another motivation factor identified, closely related to anger, but defined as "a response to a potential contaminant... motivat[ing] distancing from the source" (2005).  They therefor suggest that an Anger response increases Risk-taking while a Disgust response tends to decrease it. With that in mind, how could that affect campaigns and messages in terms of motivating a behavioral or attitude change?

Article link: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/HaseltonKetelaar.pdf

Lululemon Yoga Pants Aren’t For Everyone

Lululemon has found itself having some serious issues in terms of public relations these days, most recently divulging that maybe certain women shouldn’t be wearing the brand’s yoga pants. During an appearance on Bloomberg TV’s “Street Smart” the Lululemon co-founder and former CEO, Chip Wilson said, “Frankly, some women’s bodies actually don’t work for it…It’s really about the rubbing through the thighs, how much pressure is there over period of time, and how much they use it.”

The interview stemmed from a recall of thousands of pairs of yoga pants because they were too see-through. The topic went viral, as evidenced in a Jimmy Kimmel Live short on the possibility of a yoga pant shortage:

In an article in Ragan’s PR Daily it is mentioned that one customer posted this to the company’s Facebook page: “Really, your pants are not made for all women? Well, [the] average size of an American woman is 12, so good luck! I will never buy your product again.”

In response to the backlash following his comments, Chip Wilson posted a video on the company's Facebook page that showed what was meant to be a heartfelt apology for his comments and how his comments affected both customers of the brand and people within his company.

Lululemon is very active on its Facebook page, noticeably posting responses to every comment as far as I could tell, regardless of how negative that comment might be. But, how does a brand that is almost exclusively advertised to women recover from telling women that they must be a certain size in order to wear its clothing line?

It is my opinion that in order to combat this idea that Lululemon does not cater to certain women, the best possible course of action would be to introduce a new style of pants and a campaign connected to that new launch that would be specifically for women who are considered to be “plus-sized.” This would introduce a certain level of cognitive dissonance that would show that the company appreciates the business of all women, regardless of size, and hopefully steer people away from the idea that the brand caters to only petite women.

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/15558.aspx

Chipotle's Scarecrow Add

Here's the Chipotle add I mentioned way back at the beginning of the quarter.  It's a longer length video with a developing story around a scarecrow in his busy industrial life run by the crow overlords.  The score is a chilling rendition of "Pure Imagination" from the 1971 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory sung by Fiona Apple.

The interesting thing about the 3 and a half minute add is the fact that the chipotle brand is lightly suggested by the presence of the peppers in the clip, and  the burrito the scarecrow makes.  The Chipotle Logo doesn't even come up to the very end.  I think the primary purpose of this was to make the video seem more message driven rather than product advertisement.  Since we've been talking about messages in class, I thought this would be a good example to bring back up.

The message(s) is certainly meant to elicit an emotional response.  So what audiences do you see this being aimed towards, and why? Are there multiple messages being portrayed?  What publics would benefit?  And last, do you think an add like this is focused more on attitude or behavioral change?

It might help to know that this video is a companion film to an app-based game that can be downloaded free at www.scarcrowgame.com.  Knowing this, does the message, audience or attitude/behavior aspect change?


Source:
Zimmerman, Neetzan. "There's no getting around it: the new Chipotle add is amazing," Gawker.com 9/13/2013. http://gawker.com/theres-no-getting-around-it-the-new-chipotle-ad-is-am-1308234473 11/7/2013